I read Sex at Dawn
. It was fascinating and, in many ways, uplifting. I will not go so far as to bring up my qualifications to have an opinion on this or any of the follow-up research I've done, except to say that I indeed do have such academic qualifications but bringing them up in this context is like saying, hey, look, I'm smarter than you, I can think better than you, so your opinions, observations, and experiences are less valuable to this dialogue than mine.
I have met many people with advanced degrees who are total idiots. Not saying this is the case with the OP, but flaunting a degree doesn't mean anything if it isn't backed up by convincing argument.
If scientists proved that grass was purple, they could publish all the papers they wanted to about it, and yet, as an empiricist, I would still believe that grass is green. After all, it is
still green for all practical intents and purposes.
Sex at Dawn
focuses on our polyamorous natures, but it also demonstrates that humans evolved to have a mixed
reproductive strategy. This does not exclude monogamy as a viable option. Certainly we were meant to be much more egalitarian in our sexual practices, and certainly polyamory is natural, but you cannot tell a person who feels, even after deep self-reflection and contemplation, that monogamy is a better fit for them that they are wrong.
I have observed many long-lasting, beautiful and close monogamous relationships. The OP seems to deny that they exist, without presenting convincing evidence to the contrary. I am not that easily swayed into disbelieving the evidence of my own senses, observations, and experience. I have read the book, yet remain unconvinced that these relationships would have gained anything from nonmonogamy.
While he has many interesting points, I find his manner off-putting. Even insulting.
Also, reading one book does not make anyone an expert.